What Was 1998 Narasimha Rao Case Behind Big Order On MPs, MLAs' Immunity?

In a landmark verdict by the Supreme Court, a seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said members of parliament and state legislatures are not immune from prosecution in bribery cases. The verdict set aside a 1998 judgment in which the court ruled in favour of immunity in cases where MPs or MLAs take bribes for a speech or a vote in Parliament or the Assembly.

Bribery, the court said Monday, is not protected by parliamentary privileges and overturned its 1998 verdict - the PV Narasimha Rao case, in which the ex-Prime Minister and others accused of bribing MPs to vote for the Congress-led government in a no-trust motion were ruled to have immunity from criminal prosecution for any speech made and/or any vote cast inside the House.

READ | "Corruption Destroys...": Big Order On Legal Shield For MPs, MLAs

"We have independently adjudicated on all aspects of the controversy. Do Parliamentarians enjoy immunity? We disagree and overrule the majority on this aspect," the Chief Justice said.

PV Narasimha Rao Case Background

The Congress-led alliance that came to power after the 1991 general election was a minority administration; riding the tail end of a wave of sympathy following ex-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's assassination in Tamil Nadu, the Congress won 232 of the 487 seats, below the majority mark of 272.

Mr Rao's tenure saw multiple challenges, including a major financial crisis that triggered the 1991 economic liberalisation policies that was a political hot potato. The government also faced criticism for the Babri Masjid demolition in December 1992, and the communal violence that followed.

On the back of these, the opposition introduced a no-confidence motion in July 1993.

READ | PV Narasimha Rao, A Debated Legacy, Now Bharat Ratna

The Congress at the time had 251 votes, including those from other parties offering external support. This left the party at least a dozen short of simple majority.

However, when voting took place, the government survived by a 14-vote margin.

A year later there were allegations that six MPs from the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, including party stalwart and former Chief Minister Shibu Soren, had taken bribes to vote for the government.

However, at the time the court held that the lawmakers' immunity from prosecution extended to votes and speeches in the House; this was under Article 105 and Article 194 of the Constitution.

JMM Leader Sita Soren's Challenge

In 2012, the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha's Sita Soren (Shibu Soren's daughter-in-law), who was accused of taking a bribe to cast a vote in a Rajya Sabha election, claimed immunity citing the 1998 case.

READ | Supreme Court To Reconsider 1998 Verdict On MPs' Immunity

The Jharkhand High Court dismissed her appeal, and that dismissal was, in turn, challenged in the Supreme Court. The top court, in September last year, agreed to reconsider its 1998 judgment, saying it was an important issue having a significant bearing on "morality of polity".

What Did Supreme Court Say Today?

After extensive hearings, the top court final said that a claim for immunity in such situations failed to pass the test of being necessary to discharge legislative functions.

READ | "Great": PM's Post On No Immunity To MPs, MLAs In Bribery Cases

"We hold that bribery is not protected by Parliamentary privileges. Corruption and bribery by legislators destroy the functioning of Indian Parliamentary democracy. An MLA taking a bribe to vote in Rajya Sabha elections is also liable under the Prevention of Corruption Act," the court said.

The PV Narasimha judgment, the Chief Justice said, resulted in a "paradoxical situation" in which a legislator who accepts a bribe and votes accordingly is protected whereas a legislator who votes independently despite taking a bribe is prosecuted.

NDTV is now available on WhatsApp channels. Click on the link to get all the latest updates from NDTV on your chat.